A Confession

During my time in the collectivist #RegressiveLeft I fully bought into Democratic Socialism. I believed, like many do today, that the government shouldn't make my shoes, build my car, own farms and that kind of thing but was fully willing to accept government redistribution of wealth programs. For example, I supported authoritarian measures like limiting individual income as well as having some rather degenerate opinions on obscenity and other things that normal people might bristle at.

In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama. I did it again in 2012. Now I find the idea of voting for a Democrat repulsive because the party has been completely captured by the Regressive Left. The feminists and the Social Justice Warriors are in control of the Democratic party, despite all of the president's words about not coddling college students. If you need any further proof of this you need only to look at how Clinton and Sanders trip over themselves to be more in line with Black Lives Matter despite BLM being built on an insidious lie.

In those days I would've believed the BLM lie. I would've been a full-throated Sanders supporter. Many of my friends bristle when I compare Sanders to Trump. To be perfectly honest I am far more concerned about Sanders and his demagoguery than I am with Donald Trump and his brutish language and policy proposals. Sanders clearly represents the worst bullying tendencies of the Regressive Left, as is evident by his demonization of the wealthy and conservatives.

Democrats have been publicly opposed to the wealthy for a long time. Sanders takes a different approach, suggesting that a return to a 90% upper tax rate would be appropriate. Obviously this is a fantasy proposal but what most don't understand is that it is tyrannical. I still support a progressive tax rate to some degree though not nearly to the degree I had in the past. Placing full weight of the tax system on the wealthiest Americans is tyrannical when that rate becomes oppressive. I see little difference between this and the jizya that non-Muslims are forced to pay in Islamic societies. Both rely on a threat of real violence to enforce.

I had at one point in my life supported a functional limit on wealth. A 90% tax rate is a functional income limit. In effect, the state takes the wealth earned by individuals and seizes it to give to those who have nothing. To a degree government does this when there is some form of social safety net. The difference now is that Sanders justifies it through the use of a distorted concept of social justice that pits 'Americans' against the wealthy elite. Traditionally presidential candidates wax poetic about the American dream and the ability of any person to join the wealthy with hard work and smart decision making.

When I was a Social Justice Warrior I internalized the victim narrative that is required to believe that the wealthy elite are not Americans – that the wealthy elite are not human. I would relish stories from progressive outlets like US Uncut, Air America, MSNBC and the rest that showed the crimes of the Koch brothers or demonized Ronald Reagan or suggested that Dick Cheney was some demonic villain. Part of living in the world of the Regressive Left is to shut off the part of the brain responsible for critical thinking. Ideology shuts down the process of dialogue by destroying the ability of people to critically think.

If this political season requires anything it is the ability of voters and the media to think critically. When Donald Trump is smeared by the media using rhetoric that is eerily similar to that of Bernie Sanders you know that critical thinking is missing in the debate today. What is needed now is a return to critical thinking and an abandonment of ideology. The US and the West broadly is poised for a new kind of political realignment, one that pits authoritarians against libertarians. The old Left/Right dominance of politics may be dead for the foreseeable future. The politics of authoritarianism relies on the abandonment of critical thinking. It's how a figure like Trump can be turned into Hitler without actually examining his political positions. The best criticisms of Trump come from the political Right, which see him as a moderate. If you only listen to the mainstream media without investigating him you'll think he is an arch-conservative. Ideology preys on our inability or lack of desire to investigate the truth for ourselves. I know this from experience.

The Violent Tendencies of the Regressive Left

No movement claims to be about 'peace and justice' quite as much as the Regressive Left does. We see it in the claims of Bernie Sanders and his plans to have the US take a step back in military interventions. We see it in the anti-gun movement on the Left. And we see it in the stated motives of the Black Lives Matter movement. But beneath all of this lies the true motives of the Regressive Left, which I've expounded on at length.

Like any authoritarian movement, the Regressive Left is violent at heart. This is due in large part to the anger that motivates regressives: anger at the 'system,' anger at the wealthy, anger at alleged institutional injustices (mythical or real). Anger is a powerful motivator in elections. It is far more efficient to mobilize voters using anger than mobilizing them through compassion, kindness or rational facts.

Anger relies on something or someone to be angry at. Scapegoating is an essential tool of any demagogue. The psychologist René Girard states that a kind of community is formed when people from a wide variety of backgrounds identify a common enemy to hate. One only needs look at Third Wave Feminists to see this in action, with white “cis” straight men being reduced to subhuman status. Sanders is a master of this by subtly targeting the rich beyond what Democrats typically do. This should come as no surprise, as Sanders's base are the same Social Justice Warriors who menace college campuses around the United States.

A great example of anger and dehumanization is the case of libertarian commentator Lauren Southern, who had a bottle of urine dumped on her head when she dared to question the unscientific gender ideology promoted by SJWs. On March 5^th Southern has was assaulted by so-called 'anti-fascist' protestors inVancouver who used fascist tactics in their protest. Dumping urine or other body fluids on a person is considered assault in any civilized place in the world. One wonders what the reaction of the Left Regressives would have been if Southern had been a feminist protesting a Men's Rights Movement meeting and this had happened. Add in the online harassment against Southern that SJWs typically claim they stand against when advocating censorship of Twitter and Facebook and you get a clear picture of the hypocrisy of the fascistic Regressive Left.

Such peaceful, loving people. Nothing says 'anti-violence' like wishing cancer on someone.

Prior to the assault the protestors had been wearing masks to hide their identity. This is a common tactic on the extreme Left. During the George W Bush administration masked protestors were a common sight at anti-war demonstrations in the United States. These same protestors were largely out of sight when President Obama used drones to continue waging and expanding the US war in the middle east by proxy. Consistency is not to be expected in politics, though. Instead ideological consistency is more important.

Obviously Trump uses anger as well and is in a much stronger political position after last night's Republican primary. Trump's antics are well known and heavily criticized by Sanders's supporters and the mainstream media. Sanders and the Regressive Left get a pass. Evidence of this was the total emotional meltdown many Sanders supporters had on social media in the aftermath of the crushing defeat he received on the March 15^th Democratic primaries. The corollary to anger is righteous indignation when things do not go according to plan, as was the case last night when Sanders supporters pledged to not vote for Clinton. Disregard that this hands the White House to Trump or Cruz.  

Social Justice IS a Religion

A common charge made against Social Justice Warriors by members of the online resistance movement is that social justice has become a religion for Social Justice Warriors – that feminism is a religion. Given that most of the anti-SJW pro-liberty figures are atheists, this charge is meant to be an insult. But it is far closer to the truth than those who make the charge realize. Contemporary Social Justice Warrior-ism has taken root in the US, UK and Canada predominately, all of which have some things in common, including a religious history rooted in Protestantism.

What does Protestantism have to do with a largely atheistic movement? The answer lies in the impact these religious doctrines have on culture. Protestant ideas, especially extreme ideas associated with Calvinism, are pervasive in American culture today. This was revealed to me by reading a book for my doctoral dissertation on an entirely separate topic. The book is Broken Trust, Broken Land by Robert G Lee, which focuses on the topic of environmentalism and the authoritarian nature of the environmentalist movement. Lee is a forester and sociologist who himself believed in the claims of the environmental movement until he grappled with two major issues in the movement.

The first movement issue he dealt with was the authoritarian nature of the environmental movement. According to Lee, natural resource managers don't particularly care about the jobs lost, lives destroyed, and families undermined by the policies of resource managers who live and work hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the lands they manage. Lee responds to the claim made in the 90s by conservatives that environmentalists are not American:

There is a tendency for Americans to be easily seduced by biocentric views because we still hold a Calvinist outlook on life, and have difficulty accepting responsibility for others. We tend to see ourselves through a lens of religious imagery as a favored people whose destiny is to lead the world to freedom and enlightenment. Hence, it would be totally wrong to say that radical environmentalists are 'anti-Americans.' They are instead about as American as they can be. Environmental preservationists are simply the latest in a long line of reformers who have drawn upon our Puritan origins and Calvinist ethics to divide the world into the saved and the damned. The religious imagery we inherited from Calvin, although now highly secularized, is what makes the environmental movement so appealing. Calvinism is a familiar resting place in a time of uncertainty and rapid change. (Lee 1994, pg 52).

Lee goes on to illustrate the destructive nature of dividing society between the 'saved' and the 'damned.' If you change the words 'environmentalist' and 'biocentric' into 'Social Justice Warrior' and 'feminist' (respectively) you'll see that this idea applies equally to the landscape in the US today. As Lee says, Calvinism is hidden in the idea that some authorities have the right to tell others how we should live, to plan our lives, and to manage the technical infrastructure that makes modern life what it is. Thus we see ideologues like Anita Sarkeesian as part of the new censorship movement on Twitter. Thus, to shamelessly rework a quote of Lee and apply it to the current landscape, “Anyone who has seen Calvin's ghost will conclude that [feminism] embodies moral exclusion and could, under adverse political circumstances, lead to horrors few would have anticipated. A secularized Calvinism provides no limits to radical solutions for [social justice] problems” (Lee, pg 53, edits mine). The horrors today include the case of Gregory Allen Elliot who made the mistake of confronting radical feminists online and disagree with them forcefully; Elliot was charged in Canada with harassment and banned from the internet for 2 years until he won his case in court. The Elliot case only touches the surface of the horrors of social control we see being promoted by adherents to the new Calvinism, however.

Feminist curriculum in public elementary schools targets children at their most impressionable age. That is, taxes are being used to promote an ideology rooted in a strange and unholy marriage between Marxism and Calvinism. Children are actively being taught unscientific and unsupported theories regarding gender identity. Children are being indoctrinated to believe race-based privilege is a real thing when they are too young to engage the concept and make informed decisions on their own regarding these important topics. Jailing people for saying unpopular things is scary but the terrifying prospect is that feminists are using the state in the US and Canada to remake society in their image. In true Calvinist form they are conditioning people into being in the feminist elect.

If this book sounds interesting to you follow the link. I make no money off the sales of the book and have no connection to Dr Lee in any way. Buy it here for the current cost of 1 penny plus shipping in the US. It's worth the read.

Why I'm Not a Feminist, pt 1

I distinctly remember being asked one day about halfway through my tenure in student activism and leadership if I was a feminist. My canned response was “If by 'feminist' you mean 'do you believe in the equality of men and women,' then yes, but if you mean something other than that than no I'm not.” Several months ago my journey into rejecting feminism as part of my liberation from Progressive dogma came when a Catholic friend who identifies herself as a feminist asked the same question. Thus began a journey of self discovery using research and reviewing the arguments and data from both feminists and anti-feminists on the merits of feminism. The result:

I am not a feminist. In fact, I am an anti-feminist...at least, anti-third wave feminism.

Why am I not a feminist? There are several reasons that I not only reject contemporary feminism but actively oppose the movement that has become a religion in the West. The two I will address in brief here are the total rejection of Due Process by feminists as well as the rejection and suspicion of Freedom of Speech by adherents of feminism. There are other reasons but in the name of brevity I'll save those for later.

Due Process of Law has been rejected by the leaders of contemporary feminism. Feminists argue that when a woman states that she has been raped she should be listened to and believed. Until the rise of I Stand With Kesha, the most stark example of this position had been the case of 'Jackie' at the University of Virginia, which had been reported in a 9,000 word article in Rolling Stone magazine in an investigative article purposefully designed to provide evidence of a campus rape culture that doesn't actually exist. The Washington Post investigated the claim made in the Rolling Stone piece and found no evidence whatsoever to back up 'Jackie's' claim and in fact found substantial evidence that made her claims simply not possible. Yet many feminists say 'Jackie' must be believed simply because of her accusation. Simply 'Listening and Believing' spells the death of due process of law.

What is due process? Due process are the guarantees of legal protections for someone charged with a crime. These guarantees are enshrined in the US Constitution in the 13^th and 14^th Amendments. They include: Due process rights extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it. The term substantive due process (SDP) is commonly used in two ways: first to identify a particular line of case law, and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under the Due Process Clause.

For our purposes, due process means in sexual assault cases that no, we should no simply 'listen and believe' but must insist that the proscribed legal processes in the Constitution and the body of law in the West be respected. Is the process perfect? Hardly. These principles reflect our culture's until-now unchallenged belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The presumed innocence of the accused has been a cornerstone of western civilization since the signing of the Magna Carta in 13^th century England. Yet feminists today will say that innocence until proven guilty is part of a patriarchal system of oppression, going so far as to label all men as potential rapists. That is, presuming that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty is tyrannical and assuming that 49% of the population is a potential violent criminal. This factored heavily in to my rejection of feminism.

Free speech is also rejected by feminists. Examples abound, ranging from #Gamergate to the case of Matt Taylor (the scientist who landed a probe on a comet) wearing a shirt that had scantily clad women on it during his press conference being harassed by feminists until he was moved to tears. The best example of the insane reaction from feminists comes from the Verge, a bastion of Progressive cognitive dissonance. Taylor's achievement was one of the biggest achievements in the history of science but instead he was ostracized for wearing a tasteless shirt.

Perhaps a more glaring example is Youtube and Twitter. On those platforms conservative voices are being silenced because conservative commentators reject feminism and tend to do so in a very vocal manner. Whether it's the case of Milo Yiannopoulos being unverified by Twitter, or the recent case of Twitter banning journalist RobertStacy McCain for his strident criticism of third wave feminism, movement feminists have taken a hard line against freedom of speech, claiming thatrejecting feminism is hate speech and is even likened to misogyny .

Feminism is a movement characterized by an authoritarian sociopathy that rejects human decency and enshrines hatred and division of people. What contemporary feminism is lacking is a gifted demagogue who can lead them into a Utopian society that, like every Utopian society, inevitably collapses under the weight of its own violent dictatorship and power mongering. At the moment a feminist demagogue isn't on the political scene. Both Clinton and Sanders are too incompetent or corrupt to fit the bill. 

DISPATCHES FROM THE PATRIARCHY!!!! Part 1

BREAKING NEWS: It is my distinct pleasure to announce that I have formally been appointed as a member of the Patriarchy. I take my duty very seriously to report to everyone about what this sophisticated, all reaching conspiracy does.  Don't worry intrepid reader: I'll be reporting from the inside of the Zionist – er, Patriarchy from time to time while still reporting on the madness of Social Justice Warriors.

The following is a transcript of the first meeting of the Patriarchy that I attended, with my induction ceremony deleted. Trust me you don't want to know what was involved in that. I'm still sore.

Scene: A poorly lit room somewhere in western Europe. On a dais is seated the projected hologram of someone who looks suspiciously like the bad guy from the new Star Wars film. The dais sits, somehow, at the head of a long table. Not a single person sits at the table. Every position at the table is a hologram projection station. At each 'seat' is the projection of a different member of the Patriarchy High Council. Each station is active save for one.

Supreme Leader: Gentlemen, I trust that the rampant oppression of women by the white, male and sometimes Jewish power structure is continuing unimpeded?

Across from the Supreme Leader is seated a young, smarmy looking man in his late 20s or early 30s. He's clutching a Wu-Tang one of a kind album in one hand and in the other are grossly inflated HIV drugs. We'll call him 'Smarmy'

Smarmy: Your Greatness, things are going well despite the setback in Europe. As you will recall from our last meeting we had assumed that the coordinated sex attacks by a tacky and not terribly subtle group of 'refugees' across major European cities would have earned a response by feminists. To our total surprise the feminists either ignored the attacks completely or called for a general curfew of men regardless of identification.

Supreme Leader: Yes, I was surprised myself. Our adversaries are at-times canny. They've even gained control of the major social media outlets.

To Smary's left is seated a renowned biologist and atheism advocate. Publicly he claims to be a feminist but he was recently exposed for his true opinions.

Biologist: They managed to use social media to get me temporarily disinvited from a famous skeptics conference I was going to attend.

Supreme Leader: Didn't you Tweet a videocomparing feminists to Islamists?

Biologist: Unfortunately that was a misstep.

Smarmy: It was hilarious though.

Biologist: The affair turned into a victory. I was recently reinvited to speak, which I will be doing.

Caesar: That's a great start darling but the feminists and SJWs are now censoring Twitter feeds. My many wonderful followers can't see what I'm tweeting most of the time.

Caesar is a gay conservative anti-feminist journalist for one of the bigger conservative internet news sources that will likely be censored once the feminist candidate for president is elected.

Smarmy: Isn't that new Trust and Safety Council that Twitter established almost all anti-free speech advocates?

Candidate: It's true. Thankfully I've avoided this topic on the campaign trail. I'm not sure I can lie convincingly about free speech.

Caesar: You've done a masterful job of making young impressionable leftists believe that your plan to tax the rich to pay for everything is remotely plausible. Daddy is very pleased.

The one empty seat is reserved for Daddy, a candidate for President of the UnitedStates. His membership in this body would shock no one. Candidate is a old, Jewish, white male who has managed to divide the SJWs and Feminists in the US in the presidential primaries. He is presently running as a Democrat, claims to be a Democratic Socialist, and has slowed the Feminist candidate's ascension to the nomination. Amazingly no one has noticed that anti-semitic, anti-white racists in the US are supporting an old white Jewish man for president.

Candidate: I've been manipulating the impressionable my whole career. It's what I do. But how do we manipulate the Trust and Safety Council?

Supreme Leader: Do you have any connections within the organizations that make up the Council?

Candidate: Unfortunately I don't. I'm not sure where the impressionable demagogue who runs Feminist Frequency's allegiances lie in the election. If she supports my candidacy then I may be able to get a meeting with her.

Supreme Leader: See if you can get a meeting with her. If you can...Bring. Her. To. Me.

With that the Supreme Leader sits back and vanishes, drawing the meeting to an end.

Modern Feminism: Scaring Women Since 2000

I've written about fear an awful lot in the past weeks and with good reason. Fear dominates society in the West: fear of debt, war, terrorism, and the loss of civil liberties. These are all things worthy of being afraid of, even if how we understand these issues may vary a lot from person to person. Fear is a normal, if rare, part of the human condition. Western society is especially afraid these days for any number of reasons, which cannot be good for the collective health and psyche of people in the West.

People are also afraid of phantom threats ranging from alien abduction, the New World Order, and the Patriarchy, none of which has evidence that supports their existence. Yet each gets blamed by adherents for all manner of evil in the world. Only one of these threats doesn't immediately get its adherents associated with tinfoil hats and vast government conspiracies to control the world for the benefit of a few people at the expense of the enslavement of the rest of the world: the Patriarchy – and, to be honest, plenty of people claim that the Patriarchy is some kind of phantom subconscious conspiracy that enslaves the world.

The dimensions feminists use to scare women with claims of a Patriarchy ruling the world are so numerous that I'd have to write a book to chronicle all of them, but there are a couple of handy examples. The first is the trial outcome of GregoryAllen Elliot, which involved Elliot tweeting angry statements towards women who sought the censorship and public punishment of the creator of a game some (READ: Feminists) found offensive; public punishment included attempting to find the game's creator and his place of employment so that feminists could harass his employer into terminating him. Elliot tweeted angry messages to these women and was charged with harassment. This case served as the first case in the Canadian courts on the topic of freedom of speech.

Elliot was found not guilty of all charges, resulting in many feminists decrying the outcome and claiming that it adds to the climate of fear some women face online. Feminist activists are so afraid of the alleged harassment that women face online that Feminist leadership has even called for the UN tocensor the internet of 'hate speech,' which is a truly Orwellian proposition. Keep in mind that we're talking about angry messages sent via Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.....in other words, messages sent from long distances that pose no physical threat to anyone. In the name of protecting the feelings of the easily offended feminists would censor people in the public sphere.

A great example of this is the case of Richard Dawkins tweeting an amusing cartoon comparing contemporaryfeminism to Islamism. The response from the Femisphere was swift: direct harassment of Richard Dawkins followed by his being disinvited to speak at theNortheast Conference for Science and Skepticism for tweeting a video that hurt some people's feelings.

As I've said earlier, fear is possibly the most powerful tool for political radicals to achieve their goals. In the name of protecting people's feelings, today's SJWs are ready to sacrifice free speech. Don't believe me? Recently a conservative activist went to Yale university with a petition to repeal the First Amendment, which many students signed. This is a prime example of why feminism is an authoritarian movement, as any attempt to curtail freedom of speech in the name of protecting people is the hallmark of all illiberal movements in history.

Creating a Campus Climate of Fear

There's been a lot of talk lately about conditions on college campuses. The news and online commentators have covered college protests about all manner of things from 'offensive'Halloween costumes to fecal swastikas  to students demanding that their campus police be disarmed because ofperceived racism, college campuses have once again become hotbeds for radicalism. This radicalism is deeply embedded in the various student leadership organizations of the university campus. To illustrate, let's return to our mythical student government association and watch the process of rule by fear in process:

Scene: Student Senate Meeting. Place: Student Union Building. Date: Wednesday evening, 5pm.

Student senate leaders file in for the meeting, with the senate chair arriving first. We'll call him Daniel, an ethnically mixed male of ambiguous sexuality. He's wearing worn out jeans, a suit jacket, a dress shirt more appropriate for a frat party, and hasn't shaved in several months. He's 20 years old with a scruffy, patchy beard.

He is followed by the 12 members of the student senate, about half of whom have either a Starbucks cup in their hands or a 30oz bottle of water in case they find themselves in a desert unexpectedly. Shortly thereafter the student body president arrives with her VP; both are self-described 'Left Marxists' who secretly harbor anti-semitic attitudes dressed up in a concern for Palestinian suffering.

Shortly after their arrival they are followed by their cabinet members, who are largely radicals. The Equal Rights Advocate and the Multicultural Affairs Director take prominent seats near the President and Vice President.

The Agenda: Watching the presentation of the Alternative Student Union, an unofficial student organization that operates 'outside the system.' The Student Body President and Vice President are both members of the organization, as is about 1/3 of the Senate. The informal leader, a charming young African American woman named Alice, is walks in dressed like a normal and unassuming student. After the preliminary call to order and approval of the agenda, Alice is given the floor.

Alice: “As we know, the university administrators recently armed campus police. They did so because they are racists and are afraid of students of color. Ignore that the small police force has several women and people of color on the force – they armed them because they are racist and fear students of color. The ASU will be taking over the Board of Trustees meeting and stopping their business until they agree to disarm campus police. We'll be doing this Friday. Next Monday, the university president is having a public hearing about tuition. We'll be interrupting that meeting despite the fact that he needs to decide how to avoid raising tuition. The affordable education of every student is unimportant because we know better than the student body. We will keep doing this until they meet our demands. Any questions?”

A senator, we'll call her Maria, raises her hand: “Will this be like the last meeting? Make a lot of noise, no-platform the president and board members, and pretend we speak for the student body even though fewer than 5% of them voted for us?”

Alice: “Absolutely. The ASU was unelected, and we only ask ourselves how we feel about these issues, so we can speak accurately for the whole body of students. Bring signs and drums. The more noise the better. Noise helps intimidate them and the students who oppose us into silence.”

The Multicultural Affairs Director raises her hand: “I know that the police here are racist because they pulled me over while I was driving because I wasn't wearing a seat belt.” She shakes her rainbow colored hair. “They have no right to judge me on appearances or the lack of a seat belt.”

Alice: “Absolutely. I totally agree.”

The Student Body President raises her hand: “Someone make sure to bring snacks in case we get hungry. We need to be in this for the long haul.”

Her Vice President interjects: “I can have a rapid response team of people ready to deliver snacks at any moment. Snacks are essential.”

Obviously I'm making fun of these people but the elements are there. Any area of disagreement is reduced to racism, sexism, the Illuminati – er, I mean Patriarchy, or other forms of 'institutional oppression.' It never occurs to people that those who operate universities have a broader view and more information than students do. Not that logic matters all that much, as fear is the essential tool of Social Justice Warriors.

The federal rate of rape is actually lower on university campuses than it is in the broader society, yet fear of rape rules the day. Why? Either SJWs are ignorant of the facts or, more likely, they just don't care because fear is the ultimate political tool for achieving the revolutionary change that Cultural Marxists so desire. Universities have become homes for institutional collectivism. An essential element of collectivism is the assumption that the proletariat are too dumb to know what their needs actually are, thus enabling an elite (at universities, the activists and student leaders) to speak for them on any issue. It's rare for elected student leaders to not assume a side in a controversial issue and pretend to speak for the entire student body.

Why the focus on campus activism? Student leadership is one entry point into the political pipeline that feeds into the party and wider activist system that serves as the engine of American politics. In some states former student government leaders can become members of corrupt 'non-partisan' student lobbying organizations at the state and federal level – I say 'non-partisan' because while they refrain from endorsing specific candidates and parties, those who run these organizations tend to overwhelmingly be Cultural Marxists; this is reflected in trainings they offer for student activists that are radical and leftist in nature. But that topic I'll save for another day.